British Sprints
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: British Sprints
AIRE mainly, but if we get anything for BO, I will ensure it gets fed back to Peter Brooke.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
PS: thanks for your reply on AP
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
buzz wrote:It was fun comparing routes afterwards with Micro Buzz who ran the same course, but he pointed out several gaps that I could barely see even with my prescription reading glasses and hadn't noticed at all in the race. It would be great to have 1:3,000 for the oldsters next year.
I would agree (and feedback suggested widespread agreement too, buzz): I really enjoyed the courses, but found myself gambling several times on things becoming clear within the circle, particularly around the university itself - on a number of occasions navigated more on the description sheet than the map (steps? what steps? Just look for some when I get there!). Fortunately, it all paid off (and all my time losses were very much my own!) - credit to the planner that the emphasis largely was on the leg not the control positioning at the end. The area was simpler on Saturday, but even so still really appreciated the larger scale - not least the sharper lines etc. Overall, an excellent weekend's sport, and a huge thank you to all concerned.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: British Sprints
On the subject of map scales - the recent Stockton sprints allowed people to run a second course after completing the one they entered, which meant that I (and I suspect many others) got to compare 1:3000 and 1:4000 at the same event. I have to say that 1:3000 was a lot easier to read (for me at least) - but then I'm M65.
- roadrunner
- addict
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:30 pm
Re: British Sprints
From the affected competitors, the 1:4000 scale was the most wished-for change. And drilling a bit deeper its only the steps which were really an issue (IMO the other non-standard mapping generally improved the map).
Richard rightly points out that having two scales on course 3 is an added complication which could increase still further the risk of people getting the wrong map (coughs). Obviously this would be less risky if everyone in the same competitions ran the same course: this seems to be a hangover from the old open championships where numbers were genuinely too big for that.
So the simple thing that really should happen is having a separate course when different scales are needed (e.g. an M55-60 course and an M14/W40-50.). The courses listed in the guideline seem to only be a suggestion, not even a "should" and certainly not a "must".
One other thing which was annoying for me (I had to leave sharpish) was that we didn't know the base time for the final races. I didn't comment beforehand as I suspected this might be because, based on previous experience, the organisers weren't confident of getting results done in time to avoid delaying the starts...
Richard rightly points out that having two scales on course 3 is an added complication which could increase still further the risk of people getting the wrong map (coughs). Obviously this would be less risky if everyone in the same competitions ran the same course: this seems to be a hangover from the old open championships where numbers were genuinely too big for that.
So the simple thing that really should happen is having a separate course when different scales are needed (e.g. an M55-60 course and an M14/W40-50.). The courses listed in the guideline seem to only be a suggestion, not even a "should" and certainly not a "must".
One other thing which was annoying for me (I had to leave sharpish) was that we didn't know the base time for the final races. I didn't comment beforehand as I suspected this might be because, based on previous experience, the organisers weren't confident of getting results done in time to avoid delaying the starts...
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: British Sprints
Agree with more flexibility in the relays - particularly with the 12 and under. They can all run the same but you could have prizes for top 3 all girls, all boys, one girl and two girl teams (particularly as they all got a prize this year in any case - thank you Claro much appreciated!) I think more clubs would be able to enter teams then.
All girls, all boys, and mixed might make sense - not sure two different flavours of mixed (and the possibility of 1/2/3 girls running on the boys course anyway) is really making life easy for the team captains to put together combinations. Interesting mixtures of teams running not just in juniors but even in the elites. I think it comes back to points I and others have made here before - age is not necessarily the best dividing point for ability.
I agree - and I don't even need reading glasses - simply reading a map whilst running is hard. Since orienteering is supposed to be a test of speed and navigation not visual acuity would it not make sense to put all courses at 1:3K and then only move to 1:4K / 1:5K if the course doesn't fit on the map? Probably an interesting debate then on when double sided or A3/A4 etc is preferable to changing the scale. But that becomes about when it makes the run better rather do we need to compensate for this age group.On the subject of map scales - the recent Stockton sprints allowed people to run a second course after completing the one they entered, which meant that I (and I suspect many others) got to compare 1:3000 and 1:4000 at the same event. I have to say that 1:3000 was a lot easier to read (for me at least) - but then I'm M65.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:Obviously this would be less risky if everyone in the same competitions ran the same course: this seems to be a hangover from the old open championships where numbers were genuinely too big for that.
Partly but also that parallel qualifying heats is how the major IOF sprint events were operating (and still are for the knockout) so we wanted to keep that format for the elite/open class. On that premise it made sense to adopt the same for the other age classes. It also added an extra dimension to the event, the three parallel heats could be planned like a relay with common legs and different gaffles. Since the start list was seeded you often ended up running your heat alongside two of your peers and seeing how you were doing against them could help you guage how well you were running.
When I organised the event I paid SportIdent a reasonable amount of money to write software to automatically sort out the finals. This was also in the hope that if SI ran the event in future years the same software could be used. That didn't end up happening as clubs either used a different results supplier or decided that anyone in their club with basic spreadsheet skills could sort it all out.
I feel that we have had enough problems now that the system should change. When Graeme, myself and others discussed the possibility of an age class running the same qualifying course previously I put this to the planner of the next event but they were reluctant to upset the apple cart and so it has remained.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Sprints
If you want to make everyone in an age category run the same course, there'd need to be some serious shuffling with age cat/Course combinations from the ones currently used.
For the current course combinations, with 700 entries, I think you'd have had start windows of 2+ hours for Q & F which would elongate the already long day.
Given that this is perhaps the one BOF event where public transport is almost always going to be viable for many people, I'd not want start windows starting an earlier than we did on Sunday (I actually wanted first start to be 11am as it was at Loughborough - there were some robust discussions to get first starts at 10.45).
The sport has to decarbonise and end its reliance on cars, along with the rest of society, and if we end up with arrangements like we had at Skelmersdale that made it impossible to get there by public transport, then the sport is dead.
I'm not sure what was behind the issues with results/start lists on Sunday. I was too busy ensuring my bit was right and controls were well presented and in the right place! I didn't sit down between 7am and 2.30pm, and then again from 3.30 until 6 - I was a little tired on Monday morning.
For the current course combinations, with 700 entries, I think you'd have had start windows of 2+ hours for Q & F which would elongate the already long day.
Given that this is perhaps the one BOF event where public transport is almost always going to be viable for many people, I'd not want start windows starting an earlier than we did on Sunday (I actually wanted first start to be 11am as it was at Loughborough - there were some robust discussions to get first starts at 10.45).
The sport has to decarbonise and end its reliance on cars, along with the rest of society, and if we end up with arrangements like we had at Skelmersdale that made it impossible to get there by public transport, then the sport is dead.
I'm not sure what was behind the issues with results/start lists on Sunday. I was too busy ensuring my bit was right and controls were well presented and in the right place! I didn't sit down between 7am and 2.30pm, and then again from 3.30 until 6 - I was a little tired on Monday morning.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
I will say that as a competitor, I quite like the qualifier/final format with parallel heats. For me, it's better than 2 sprints simply added together or the chasing sprint formats.
But, now that I've planned it, the event needs simplification.
There are just too many moving parts - on top of the usual urban terrain issues, and inevitably something is always going to go wrong somewhere.
But, now that I've planned it, the event needs simplification.
There are just too many moving parts - on top of the usual urban terrain issues, and inevitably something is always going to go wrong somewhere.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
rf_fozzy wrote:For the current course combinations, with 700 entries, I think you'd have had start windows of 2+ hours for Q & F which would elongate the already long day.
Yes you would need different course / class combinations. When the rules were written the hope was that most of the qualifiers would take around an hour, up to 75 minutes was fine and 90 was just about OK if there was a particularly large entry on one course. What was the biggest single age class on Saturday?
The finals wouldn't change - for a large class still 18 in the A final and then we gave organisers the flexibility to decide on how many lower finals to run. For most just a B final should be fine.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Sprints
rf_fozzy wrote:controls were well presented.
We put our event on pre-SIAC and decided that every control had to be on a stake or trestle. Now that most people have a SIAC it common to simply gripple a unit / flag to a tree or similar. I did come across a couple of controls on Sunday where the gripple wire had slipped and either the unit was lying on the ground or the flag was lying flat and so less obvious. We could add a rule stating that units and flags should be secured in such a way to minimise the chances of this happening. But then people would complain that such rules are unnecessary.
- NeilC
- addict
- Posts: 1332
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 9:03 am
- Location: SE
Re: British Sprints
Aside from the obvious "high quality event" stuff, I think what we're fundamentally looking for is -
Two sprint races, in a common location.
Legible maps for older runners.
Simpler results processing for second race start times.
Shortening what's already a long day.
The second two point to having the common-to-all qualifier. No sharing courses between oldies and young'uns I heard three reasonable options to do this -
Individual in the morning, relay in the afternoon
Two races, preset start times, add up the times.
Qualifier, only top 15 go to A final.
Single race Championship in the morning, Chase/head-to-head in the afternoon
As a competitor, I prefer the third: "qualifying for the A-final" creates an achievable target for many. As an organiser, the second removes all the result-processing stress.
The biggest [edit] class was men's open with 50, so you only need an hour start window. Is the long delay mainly needed for getting results sorted or hanging controls? JOK Chasing sprints easily manage a 2-hour window though they are a little easier for start lists: you know your race 2 start time as soon as you finish race 1.
But the big question is how to get there from where we are now?
Two sprint races, in a common location.
Legible maps for older runners.
Simpler results processing for second race start times.
Shortening what's already a long day.
The second two point to having the common-to-all qualifier. No sharing courses between oldies and young'uns I heard three reasonable options to do this -
Individual in the morning, relay in the afternoon
Two races, preset start times, add up the times.
Qualifier, only top 15 go to A final.
Single race Championship in the morning, Chase/head-to-head in the afternoon
As a competitor, I prefer the third: "qualifying for the A-final" creates an achievable target for many. As an organiser, the second removes all the result-processing stress.
The biggest [edit] class was men's open with 50, so you only need an hour start window. Is the long delay mainly needed for getting results sorted or hanging controls? JOK Chasing sprints easily manage a 2-hour window though they are a little easier for start lists: you know your race 2 start time as soon as you finish race 1.
But the big question is how to get there from where we are now?
Last edited by graeme on Thu Jun 16, 2022 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4727
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: British Sprints
graeme wrote:
The biggest course was men's open with 50
No - the biggest entry is on Course 4: M12 M65 M70 M75 M80 M85 W12 W14 W55 W60 W65
W70 W75 W80 W85
We had over 120 entries on that course - which is why there were 5 Course 4 qualifiers and 2 Course 4 finals.
Course 1 is the least problematic (no idea why the M20s were allocated to the wrong heats btw - not my job!)
As for the gap between Q & F, it will depend on the event, but....
- You need to give 45mins from last start in Q to courses close time
- You need to allow 15mins for protests (min)
- You need to allow time to check times and produce start lists
- You need to allow time to set up the part 2 (finals?) start area
- You may or may not need to collect in/put out extra controls
Point 3 is typically where the issues arise.
We didn't move any controls - we put out about 20 extras in the area covered by the walking route from the car park and collected in about 12 if I recall. Not needed if you area is bigger than ours was. Reason we didn't move any was because I was concerned about errors. We had one person collecting and the rest putting out. Made sure we got that right.
NeilC wrote:
For most just a B final should be fine.
We needed C finals on Sunday on all courses except course 4 (because we split it into 2 finals). Otherwise the start window would have been significantly longer.
NeilC wrote:
I did come across a couple of controls on Sunday where the gripple wire had slipped and either the unit was lying on the ground or the flag was lying flat and so less obvious
We tried very hard for this not to happen. Technically we should have had vertically mounted numbers for each control... instead we tried to make the boxes and numbers visible. And particularly on round railings, difficult to dislodge from people with non-siac dibbers...
Sorry if we didn't get this right on every control. Hopefully no-one was too troubled by it.
I did see one comment that all controls should have been mounted on tressles - they are welcome to try this should they ever volunteer to plan a British Sprints. 125 tressles would be financially unviable (or we'd be charging £50+/competitor) and they can put them out - it takes a double the time to set up a tressle and gripple it all together.
We only used tressles where absolutely necessary.
I don't envy WOC2024 - I expect you'll need a hanging team of about 50 people to manage it.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
I also saw the comment that called my mapping "low spec" which was amusing. Especially since the mapping for the sprint relays (produced by Quentin Harding/Paul Taylor) was also called "low spec"
No, the map was not done at 1:3000 and then shrunk to 1:4000. It was drawn at 1:4000 and the 1:3k was a simple enlargment.
I suspect the person who complained runs on a lot maps originally drawn to 1:5k and have had simple enlargments to 1:4k.
Which is why I don't usually do this.
No, the map was not done at 1:3000 and then shrunk to 1:4000. It was drawn at 1:4000 and the 1:3k was a simple enlargment.
I suspect the person who complained runs on a lot maps originally drawn to 1:5k and have had simple enlargments to 1:4k.
Which is why I don't usually do this.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: British Sprints
As for the sprint relays. I agree - more flexibility in teams/ages required.
I don't understand why we can't follow the models used in straight running relay races (e.g. Calderdale Way/Leeds Country Way relays) - everyone runs the same course and you just have categories (e.g. Open/Women/Mixed/Vets/SuperVets etc) - you don't need separate courses.
Especially since the courses are so short anyway.
It should be doable with 2 courses (TD2 and TD3) - but I know some will complain at this suggestion, so I'd do a TD2 course (although how you plan TD2 in the urban environment....) and a "long" and "short" course at TD3.
I don't understand why we can't follow the models used in straight running relay races (e.g. Calderdale Way/Leeds Country Way relays) - everyone runs the same course and you just have categories (e.g. Open/Women/Mixed/Vets/SuperVets etc) - you don't need separate courses.
Especially since the courses are so short anyway.
It should be doable with 2 courses (TD2 and TD3) - but I know some will complain at this suggestion, so I'd do a TD2 course (although how you plan TD2 in the urban environment....) and a "long" and "short" course at TD3.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests